The "Summit Ridge" sample provided 10 percent higher frame-rates than a Core i5-4670K, in the "Ashes of the Singularity" 1080p benchmark. The chip is still convincingly beaten by 12 percent, by a Core i7-4790 (non-K), running at 3.60 GHz, with 4.00 GHz boost. This shows that AMD could leverage the new 14 nm FinFET process to crank up clock-speeds, and produce SKUs competitive with current Intel "Skylake-D" Core i5 and Core i7 processors.

Dr_M said:New 8C/16T cpu is slightly faster than old 4C/4T. What a shocker.

It also depends on how many core AotS can put to good use. I don't know, I haven't paid much attention to this title.

Edit: I do see a (potential) upside in all this: whenever AMD underdelivered, they always kept performance numbers under a tight lid. If they let stuff leak this time, maybe the story is different. Maybe.

so the frequency isn't relevant, the core count is but the 4 core/thread part is pretty much 10% slower and the 8 thread part is 10% faster. The 8% speed discrepancy between i5 & i7 seems to have little outcome effect. AotS is using threads better but it must tank at some point between 4 - 8 threads.

A better 'leak' would be a down clocked 8 core (16 thread) Sandybridge Enthusiast chip (given how old it is).

Frick said:If it's as fast has Haswell clock for clock, then I would say it's a success. They still won't beat Intel though. They never will.

Who cares, really? I used to think that way, but if you're realistic, there is 7fps difference. Sounds a lot. But when you look at framerate, 58 vs 65 ? Does it really make any kind of real difference? Especially if AMD is priced a bit lower, it doesn't even need to be king of the hill. Those who plan on tossing 500€ into CPU won't care either way, they just want best of the best (while still not going at highest end extreme). But those that care about price, every € counts.

Assimilator said:If this is valid, excellent news. But as per normal, will wait for review samples before passing judgement.

I see some thing good but it's no excellent, looks pretty sub par so far. I do know that i have less hope due to this news.

Price is were it's going matter for a lot of people.

RejZoR said:Who cares, really? I used to think that way, but if you're realistic, there is 7fps difference. Sounds a lot. But when you look at framerate, 58 vs 65 ? Does it really make any kind of real difference? Especially if AMD is priced a bit lower, it doesn't even need to be king of the hill. Those who plan on tossing 500€ into CPU won't care either way, they just want best of the best (while still not going at highest end extreme). But those that care about price, every € counts.

You could all so look at that as 30 playable and 23fps not playable and some 60 playable and 53 not.

It's hard to tell anything from a single benchmark, especially one that's more GPU dependent. If you put it together with the old AIDA benchmark we saw a few months ago, it's not going to be so bad of a chip. Crappy clocks is it's main problem so far.

So far we have only seen the result of one benchmark that favours AMD's moar cores philosophy.
That also highlights how poorly this E.S. of Zen will do in normal benchmarks that can use only 4 cores or less, clock speeds will be their downfall again, they need to ramp them up.

Caring1 said:So far we have only seen the result of one benchmark that favours AMD's moar cores philosophy.
That also highlights how poorly this E.S. of Zen will do in normal benchmarks that can use only 4 cores or less, clock speeds will be their downfall again, they need to ramp them up.

I don't get it. FX CPUs have high clocks; the area they lack in is IPC...